DOCSLIB.ORG

Compactly Generated Stacks: a Cartesian Closed Theory Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compactly Generated Stacks: a Cartesian Closed Theory Of COMPACTLY GENERATED STACKS: A CARTESIAN CLOSED THEORY OF TOPOLOGICAL STACKS DAVID CARCHEDI Abstract. A convenient bicategory of topological stacks is constructed which is both complete and Cartesian closed. This bicategory, called the bicategory of compactly generated stacks, is the analogue of classical topological stacks, but for a different Grothendieck topology. In fact, there is an equivalence of bi- categories between compactly generated stacks and those classical topological stacks which admit locally compact Hausdorff atlases. Compactly generated stacks are also equivalent to a bicategory of topological groupoids and principal bundles, just as in the classical case. If a classical topological stack and a com- pactly generated stack have a presentation by the same topological groupoid, then they restrict to the same stack over locally compact Hausdorff spaces and are homotopy equivalent. Contents 1 . Introduction 2 1 .1. Why are Compactly Generated Hausdorff Spaces Cartesian Closed? 4 1 .2. Organization and Main Results 5 2 . Topological Stacks 8 2 .1. Fibrant Topological Groupoids 8 2 .2. Paratopological Stacks and Mapping Stacks 9 3 . The Compactly Generated Grothendieck Topology 13 3 .1. The Compactly Generated Grothendieck Topology 14 arXiv:0907.3925v3 [math.AT] 19 Jan 2012 3 .2. Stacks for the Compactly Generated Grothendieck Topology 20 4 . Compactly Generated Stacks 21 4 .1. Compactly Generated Stacks 21 4 .2. Mapping Stacks of Compactly Generated Stacks 25 4 .3. Homotopy Types of Compactly Generated Stacks 27 4 .4. Comparison with Topological Stacks 32 A . Stacks 41 B . Topological Groupoids and Topological Stacks 43 B .1. Definitions and Some Examples 43 B .2. Principal Bundles 44 B .3. Bicategories of Topological Groupoids 46 B .4. Topological Stacks 48 References 50 1 2 David Carchedi 1 . Introduction The aim of this paper is to introduce the bicategory of compactly generated stacks. Compactly generated stacks are “essentially the same” as topological stacks, however, their associated bicategory is Cartesian closed and complete, whereas the bicategory of topological stacks appears to enjoy neither of these properties. In this paper, we show that these categorical shortcomings can be overcame by refining the open cover Grothendieck topology to take into account compact generation. It is well known that the category of topological spaces is not well behaved. In particular, it is not Cartesian closed. Recall that if a category C is Cartesian closed then for any two objects X and Y of C , there exists a mapping object Map (X, Y ) , such that for every object Z of C , there is a natural isomorphism Hom (X, Map (X, Y )) =∼ Hom (Z × X, Y ) . The category of topological spaces is not Cartesian closed; one can topologize the set of maps from X to Y with the compact-open topology, but this space will not always satisfy the above universal property. In a 1967 paper [24], Norman Steenrod set forth compactly generated Hausdorff spaces as a convenient category of topological spaces in which to work. In particular, compactly generated spaces are Cartesian closed. Though technical in nature, history showed this paper to be of great importance; it is now standard practice to work within the framework of compactly generated spaces. Unfortunately, topological stacks are not as nicely behaved as topological spaces, even when considering only those associated to compactly generated Hausdorff topological groupoids. The bicategory of topological stacks is deficient in two ways as it appears to be neither complete, nor Cartesian closed [20],[21]; that is, mapping stacks need not exist. Analogously to the definition of mapping spaces, if X and Y are two topological stacks, a mapping stack Map (X , Y ) (if it exists), would be a topological stack such that there is a natural equivalence of groupoids Hom (Z , Map (X , Y )) ≃ Hom (Z × X , Y ) , for every topological stack Z . The mapping stack Map (X , Y ) always exists as an abstract stack, but it may not be a topological stack, so we may not be able to apply all the tools of topology to it. This problem can be fixed however, as there exists a more well behaved bicategory of topological stacks, which we call “compactly generated stacks”, which is Cartesian closed and complete as a bicategory. This bicategory provides the topologist with a convenient bicategory of topological stacks in which to work. The aim of this paper is to introduce this theory. The study of mapping stacks has been done in many different settings. In the algebraic world, Masao Aoki and Martin Olsson studied the existence of mapping stacks between algebraic stacks in [2], and [22] respectively. The special case of differentiable maps between orbifolds has been studied by Weimin Chen in [4], and is restricted to the case where the domain orbifold is compact. Andr´eHaefliger has studied the case of smooth maps between ´etale Lie groupoids (which correspond to differentiable stacks with an ´etale atlas) in [8]. In [9], Ernesto Lupercio and Bernardo Uribe showed that the free loop stack (the stack of maps from S1 to the stack) of an arbitrary topological stack is again a topological stack. In [21], Behrang Noohi addressed the general case of maps between topological stacks. He showed that under a certain compactness condition on the domain stack, the stack of Compactly Generated Stacks 3 maps between two topological stacks is a topological stack, and if this compactness condition is replaced with a local compactness condition, the mapping stack is “not very far” from being topological. In order to obtain a Cartesian closed bicategory of topological stacks, we first restrict to stacks over a Cartesian closed subcategory of the category TOP of all topological spaces. For instance, all of the results of [21] about mapping stacks are about stacks over the category of compactly generated spaces with respect to the open cover Grothendieck topology. We choose to work over the category of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces (CGH) since, in addition to being Cartesian closed, every compact Hausdorff space is locally compact Hausdorff, which is crucial in defining the compactly generated Grothendieck topology. There are several equivalent ways of describing compactly generated stacks. The description that substantiates most clearly the name “compactly generated” is the description in terms of topological groupoids and principal bundles. Recall that the bicategory of topological stacks is equivalent to the bicategory of topological groupoids and principal bundles. Classically, if X is a topological space and G is a topological groupoid, the map π of a (left) principal G-bundle P over X G1 P ⑧ µ ⑧ ⑧⑧ π ⑧⑧ ⑧⑧ G0 X must admit local sections. If instead π only admits local sections over each compact subset of X, then one arrives at the definition of a compactly generated principal bundle. With this notion of compactly generated principal bundles, one can define a bicategory of topological groupoids in an obvious way. This bicategory is equivalent to compactly generated stacks. There is another simple way of defining compactly generated stacks. Given any stack X over the category of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces, it can be restricted to the category of compact Hausdorff spaces CH. This produces a 2-functor j∗ : TSt → St (CH) from the bicategory of topological stacks to the bicategory of stacks over compact Hausdorff spaces. Compactly generated stacks are (equivalent to) the essential image of this 2-functor. Finally, the simplest description of compactly generated stacks is that compactly generated stacks are classical topological stacks (over compactly generated Haus- dorff spaces) which admit a locally compact Hausdorff atlas. In this description, the mapping stack of two spaces is usually not a space, but a stack! For technical reasons, neither of the three previous concepts of compactly gen- erated stacks are put forth as the definition. Instead, a Grothendieck topology CG is introduced on the category CGH of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces which takes into account the compact generation of this category. It is in fact the Grothendieck topology induced by geometrically embedding the topos Sh (CH) CGHop of sheaves over CH into the topos of presheaves Set . Compactly generated stacks are defined to be presentable stacks (see Definition B .17) with respect to this Grothendieck topology. The equivalence of all four notions of compactly gen- erated stacks is shown in Section 4 .1. 4 David Carchedi 1 .1. Why are Compactly Generated Hausdorff Spaces Cartesian Closed? In order to obtain a Cartesian closed bicategory of topological stacks, we start with a Cartesian closed category of topological spaces. We choose to work with the aforementioned category CGH of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces (also known as Kelley spaces). Definition 1 .1. A topological space X is compactly generated if it has the final topology with respect to all maps into X with compact Hausdorff domain. When X is Hausdorff, this is equivalent to saying that a subset A of X is open if and only if its intersection which every compact subset of X is open. -The inclusion v : CGH ֒→ HAUS of the category of compactly generated Haus dorff spaces into the category of Hausdorff spaces admits a right adjoint k, called the Kelley functor, which replaces the topology of a space X with the final topology with respect to all maps into X with compact Hausdorff domain. Limits in CGH are computed by first computing the limit in HAUS, and then applying the Kelley functor. (In this way the compactly generated product topology differs from the ordinary product topology). In particular, CGH is a complete category. Although the fact that this category is Cartesian closed is a classical result (see: [24]), we will recall briefly the key reasons why this is true in order to gain insight into how one could construct a Cartesian closed theory of topological stacks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geometric Modality and Weak Exponentials
    Geometric Modality and Weak Exponentials Amirhossein Akbar Tabatabai ∗ Institute of Mathematics Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [email protected] Abstract The intuitionistic implication and hence the notion of function space in constructive disciplines is both non-geometric and impred- icative. In this paper we try to solve both of these problems by first introducing weak exponential objects as a formalization for predica- tive function spaces and then by proposing modal spaces as a way to introduce a natural family of geometric predicative implications based on the interplay between the concepts of time and space. This combination then leads to a brand new family of modal propositional logics with predicative implications and then to topological semantics for these logics and some weak modal and sub-intuitionistic logics, as well. Finally, we will lift these notions and the corresponding relations to a higher and more structured level of modal topoi and modal type theory. 1 Introduction Intuitionistic logic appears in different many branches of mathematics with arXiv:1711.01736v1 [math.LO] 6 Nov 2017 many different and interesting incarnations. In geometrical world it plays the role of the language of a topological space via topological semantics and in a higher and more structured level, it becomes the internal logic of any elementary topoi. On the other hand and in the theory of computations, the intuitionistic logic shows its computational aspects as a method to describe the behavior of computations using realizability interpretations and in cate- gory theory it becomes the syntax of the very central class of Cartesian closed categories.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets
    On the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets Aruchchunan Surendran Ludwig-Maximilians-University Supervision: Dr. I. Petrakis August 14, 2019 1 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Elements of basic Category Theory 3 2.1 The category Set ................................3 2.2 Basic definitions . .4 2.3 Basic properties of Set .............................6 2.3.1 Epis and monos . .6 2.3.2 Elements as arrows . .8 2.3.3 Binary relations as monic arrows . .9 2.3.4 Coequalizers as quotient sets . 10 2.4 Membership of elements . 12 2.5 Partial and total arrows . 14 2.6 Cartesian closed categories (CCC) . 16 2.6.1 Products of objects . 16 2.6.2 Application: λ-Calculus . 18 2.6.3 Exponentials . 21 3 Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (CETCS) 26 3.1 Constructivism . 26 3.2 Axioms of ETCS . 27 3.3 Axioms of CETCS . 28 3.4 Π-Axiom . 29 3.5 Set-theoretic consequences . 32 3.5.1 Quotient Sets . 32 3.5.2 Induction . 34 3.5.3 Constructing new relations with logical operations . 35 3.6 Correspondence to standard categorical formulations . 42 1 1 Introduction The Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (ETCS) was first introduced by William Lawvere in [4] in 1964 to give an axiomatization of sets. The goal of this thesis is to describe the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (CETCS), following its presentation by Erik Palmgren in [2]. In chapter 2. we discuss basic elements of Category Theory. Category Theory was first formulated in the year 1945 by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in their paper \General theory of natural equivalences" and is the study of generalized functions, called arrows, in an abstract algebra.
    [Show full text]
  • The Category of Sheaves Is a Topos Part 2
    The category of sheaves is a topos part 2 Patrick Elliott Recall from the last talk that for a small category C, the category PSh(C) of presheaves on C is an elementary topos. Explicitly, PSh(C) has the following structure: • Given two presheaves F and G on C, the exponential GF is the presheaf defined on objects C 2 obC by F G (C) = Hom(hC × F; G); where hC = Hom(−;C) is the representable functor associated to C, and the product × is defined object-wise. • Writing 1 for the constant presheaf of the one object set, the subobject classifier true : 1 ! Ω in PSh(C) is defined on objects by Ω(C) := fS j S is a sieve on C in Cg; and trueC : ∗ ! Ω(C) sends ∗ to the maximal sieve t(C). The goal of this talk is to refine this structure to show that the category Shτ (C) of sheaves on a site (C; τ) is also an elementary topos. To do this we must make use of the sheafification functor defined at the end of the first talk: Theorem 0.1. The inclusion functor i : Shτ (C) ! PSh(C) has a left adjoint a : PSh(C) ! Shτ (C); called sheafification, or the associated sheaf functor. Moreover, this functor commutes with finite limits. Explicitly, a(F) = (F +)+, where + F (C) := colimS2τ(C)Match(S; F); where Match(S; F) is the set of matching families for the cover S of C, and the colimit is taken over all covering sieves of C, ordered by reverse inclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories for Me, and You?
    Categories for Me, and You?∗ Cl´ement Aubert† October 16, 2019 arXiv:1910.05172v2 [math.CT] 15 Oct 2019 ∗The title echoes the notes of Olivier Laurent, available at https://perso.ens-lyon.fr/olivier.laurent/categories.pdf. †e-mail: [email protected]. Some of this work was done when I was sup- ported by the NSF grant 1420175 and collaborating with Patricia Johann, http://www.cs.appstate.edu/~johannp/. This result is folklore, which is a technical term for a method of publication in category theory. It means that someone sketched it on the back of an envelope, mimeographed it (whatever that means) and showed it to three people in a seminar in Chicago in 1973, except that the only evidence that we have of these events is a comment that was overheard in another seminar at Columbia in 1976. Nevertheless, if some younger person is so presumptuous as to write out a proper proof and attempt to publish it, they will get shot down in flames. Paul Taylor 2 Contents 1. On Categories, Functors and Natural Transformations 6 1.1. BasicDefinitions ................................ 6 1.2. Properties of Morphisms, Objects, Functors, and Categories . .. .. 7 1.3. Constructions over Categories and Functors . ......... 15 2. On Fibrations 18 3. On Slice Categories 21 3.1. PreliminariesonSlices . .... 21 3.2. CartesianStructure. 24 4. On Monads, Kleisli Category and Eilenberg–Moore Category 29 4.1. Monads ...................................... 29 4.2. KleisliCategories . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30 4.3. Eilenberg–Moore Categories . ..... 31 Bibliography 41 A. Cheat Sheets 43 A.1. CartesianStructure. 43 A.2.MonadicStructure ............................... 44 3 Disclaimers Purpose Those notes are an expansion of a document whose first purpose was to remind myself the following two equations:1 Mono = injective = faithful Epi = surjective = full I am not an expert in category theory, and those notes should not be trusted2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Profunctorial Scott Semantics Zeinab Galal Université De Paris, IRIF, CNRS, Paris, France [email protected]
    A Profunctorial Scott Semantics Zeinab Galal Université de Paris, IRIF, CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we study the bicategory of profunctors with the free finite coproduct pseudo-comonad and show that it constitutes a model of linear logic that generalizes the Scott model. We formalize the connection between the two models as a change of base for enriched categories which induces a pseudo-functor that preserves all the linear logic structure. We prove that morphisms in the co-Kleisli bicategory correspond to the concept of strongly finitary functors (sifted colimits preserving functors) between presheaf categories. We further show that this model provides solutions of recursive type equations which provides 2-dimensional models of the pure lambda calculus and we also exhibit a fixed point operator on terms. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Linear logic; Theory of computation → Categorical semantics Keywords and phrases Linear Logic, Scott Semantics, Profunctors Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2020.16 Acknowledgements I thank Thomas Ehrhard, Marcelo Fiore, Chaitanya Leena Subramaniam and Christine Tasson for helpful discussions on this article and the referees for their valuable feedback. 1 Introduction 1.1 Scott semantics and linear logic Domain theory provides a mathematical structure to study computability with a notion of approximation of information. The elements of a domain represent partial stages of computation and the order relation represents increasing computational information. Among the desired properties of the interpretation of a program are monotonicity and continuity, i.e. the more a function has information on its input, the more it will provide information on its output and any finite part of the output can be attained through a finite computation.
    [Show full text]
  • Locally Cartesian Closed Categories, Coalgebras, and Containers
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2013:5 Locally cartesian closed categories, coalgebras, and containers Tilo Wiklund Examensarbete i matematik, 15 hp Handledare: Erik Palmgren, Stockholms universitet Examinator: Vera Koponen Mars 2013 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Contents 1 Algebras and Coalgebras 1 1.1 Morphisms .................................... 2 1.2 Initial and terminal structures ........................... 4 1.3 Functoriality .................................... 6 1.4 (Co)recursion ................................... 7 1.5 Building final coalgebras ............................. 9 2 Bundles 13 2.1 Sums and products ................................ 14 2.2 Exponentials, fibre-wise ............................. 18 2.3 Bundles, fibre-wise ................................ 19 2.4 Lifting functors .................................. 21 2.5 A choice theorem ................................. 22 3 Enriching bundles 25 3.1 Enriched categories ................................ 26 3.2 Underlying categories ............................... 29 3.3 Enriched functors ................................. 31 3.4 Convenient strengths ............................... 33 3.5 Natural transformations .............................. 41 4 Containers 45 4.1 Container functors ................................ 45 4.2 Natural transformations .............................. 47 4.3 Strengths, revisited ................................ 50 4.4 Using shapes ................................... 53 4.5 Final remarks ................................... 56 i Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • A Type Theory for Cartesian Closed Bicategories
    A type theory for cartesian closed bicategories Marcelo Fiore Philip Saville Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge Index Terms x,Ñ —typed lambda calculus, higher category theory, We construct an internal language Λps for cartesian closed Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence, cartesian closed bicate- bicategories (where ‘ps’ stands for pseudo), thus reducing gories the problem of coherence for cartesian closed bicategories Abstract—We construct an internal language for cartesian x,Ñ to a property of Λps . This type theory provides a practical closed bicategories. Precisely, we introduce a type theory mod- calculus for reasoning in such settings and directly generalises elling the structure of a cartesian closed bicategory and show that its syntactic model satisfies an appropriate universal property, the STLC (Simply-Typed Lambda Calculus) [19]. thereby lifting the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence to the Our work is motivated by the complexities of calculating in bicategorical setting. Our approach is principled and practical. the cartesian closed bicategories of generalised species [7] and Weak substitution structure is constructed using a bicategori- of cartesian distributors [9], specifically for their application to fication of the notion of abstract clone from universal algebra, higher-dimensional category theory [20]. However, the internal and the rules for products and exponentials are synthesised from semantic considerations. The result is a type theory that employs language we present applies to other examples: cartesian a novel combination of 2-dimensional type theory and explicit closed bicategories also appear in categorical algebra [10] and substitution, and directly generalises the Simply-Typed Lambda game semantics [21]. Calculus. This work is the first step in a programme aimed at proving coherence for cartesian closed bicategories.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory
    Category theory Helen Broome and Heather Macbeth Supervisor: Andre Nies June 2009 1 Introduction The contrast between set theory and categories is instructive for the different motivations they provide. Set theory says encouragingly that it’s what’s inside that counts. By contrast, category theory proclaims that it’s what you do that really matters. Category theory is the study of mathematical structures by means of the re- lationships between them. It provides a framework for considering the diverse contents of mathematics from the logical to the topological. Consequently we present numerous examples to explicate and contextualize the abstract notions in category theory. Category theory was developed by Saunders Mac Lane and Samuel Eilenberg in the 1940s. Initially it was associated with algebraic topology and geometry and proved particularly fertile for the Grothendieck school. In recent years category theory has been associated with areas as diverse as computability, algebra and quantum mechanics. Sections 2 to 3 outline the basic grammar of category theory. The major refer- ence is the expository essay [Sch01]. Sections 4 to 8 deal with toposes, a family of categories which permit a large number of useful constructions. The primary references are the general category theory book [Bar90] and the more specialised book on topoi, [Mac82]. Before defining a topos we expand on the discussion of limits above and describe exponential objects and the subobject classifier. Once the notion of a topos is established we look at some constructions possible in a topos: in particular, the ability to construct an integer and rational object from a natural number object.
    [Show full text]
  • Exponential Objects
    FORMALIZED MATHEMATICS Vol. 23, No. 4, Pages 351–369, 2015 DOI: 10.1515/forma-2015-0028 degruyter.com/view/j/forma Exponential Objects Marco Riccardi Via del Pero 102 54038 Montignoso Italy Summary. In the first part of this article we formalize the concepts of terminal and initial object, categorical product [4] and natural transformation within a free-object category [1]. In particular, we show that this definition of natural transformation is equivalent to the standard definition [13]. Then we introduce the exponential object using its universal property and we show the isomorphism between the exponential object of categories and the functor cate- gory [12]. MSC: 18A99 18A25 03B35 Keywords: exponential objects; functor category; natural transformation MML identifier: CAT 8, version: 8.1.04 5.33.1254 The notation and terminology used in this paper have been introduced in the following articles: [2], [5], [15], [16], [17], [10], [6], [7], [11], [18], [19], [3], [8], [21], [22], [14], [20], and [9]. 1. Preliminaries Now we state the propositions: (1) Let us consider a composable, associative category structure C , and morphisms f1, f2, f3 of C . Suppose f1 .f2 and f2 .f3. Then (f1 ◦f2)◦f3 = f1 ◦ (f2 ◦ f3). (2) Let us consider a composable, associative category structure C , and morphisms f1, f2, f3, f4 of C . Suppose f1 .f2 and f2 .f3 and f3 .f4. Then (i)(( f1 ◦ f2) ◦ f3) ◦ f4 = (f1 ◦ f2) ◦ (f3 ◦ f4), and (ii)(( f1 ◦ f2) ◦ f3) ◦ f4 = (f1 ◦ (f2 ◦ f3)) ◦ f4, and c 2015 University of Białystok CC-BY-SA License ver. 3.0 or later 351 ISSN 1426–2630(Print), 1898-9934(Online) 352 marco riccardi (iii)(( f1 ◦ f2) ◦ f3) ◦ f4 = f1 ◦ ((f2 ◦ f3) ◦ f4), and (iv)(( f1 ◦ f2) ◦ f3) ◦ f4 = f1 ◦ (f2 ◦ (f3 ◦ f4)).
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Internal Categories
    Complete Internal Categories Enrico Ghiorzi∗ April 2020 Internal categories feature notions of limit and completeness, as originally proposed in the context of the effective topos. This paper sets out the theory of internal completeness in a general context, spelling out the details of the definitions of limit and completeness and clarifying some subtleties. Remarkably, complete internal categories are also cocomplete and feature a suitable version of the adjoint functor theorem. Such results are understood as consequences of the intrinsic smallness of internal categories. Contents Introduction 2 1 Background 3 1.1 Internal Categories . .3 1.2 Exponentials of Internal Categories . .9 2 Completeness of Internal Categories 12 2.1 Diagrams and Cones . 12 2.2 Limits . 14 2.3 Completeness . 17 2.4 Special Limits . 20 2.5 Completeness and Cocompleteness . 22 arXiv:2004.08741v1 [math.CT] 19 Apr 2020 2.6 Adjoint Functor Theorem . 25 References 32 ∗Research funded by Cambridge Trust and EPSRC. 1 Introduction Introduction It is a remarkable feature of the effective topos [Hyl82] to contain a small subcategory, the category of modest sets, which is in some sense complete. That such a category should exist was originally suggested by Eugenio Moggi as a way to understand how realizability toposes give rise to models for impredicative polymorphism, and concrete versions of such models already appeared in [Gir72]. The sense in which the category of modest sets is complete is a delicate matter which, among other aspects of the situation, is considered in [HRR90]. This notion of (strong) completeness is related in a reasonably straightforward way—using the externalization of an internal category—to the established notion for indexed categories [PS78].
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Differential Geometry; Second Edition
    Toward a Synthetic Cartan-Kahler Theorem 1 Introduction The goal of these notes is to build up enough of the foundations and practice of synthetic differential geome- try so that we may formulate several important classical theorems and constructions of differential geometry. We hope to illustrate along the way some of the advantages (e.g. cartesian closedness) and pitfalls (e.g. hav- ing to use only constructive logic) of the synthetic theory along the way. This endeavor will proceed in several stages. First, we give a brief overview of the theory of C1-rings, used in differential geometry in a way parallel to the functorial approach to algebraic geometry. At this stage we will also discuss some particular classes of ideals of C1-rings (namely closed ideals and germ determined ideals) that will be of essential categorical importance later. We quote many results with reference (most often to [12]), but provide proof for very few for the sake of brevity. Then we will proceed to define a series of categories based off these C1-rings, in which the usual category of smooth manifolds M embeds fully and faithfully. The idea is that M lacks several desirable features, such as being Cartesian closed, having finite inverse limits in general and having ”infinitesimal” manifolds (which ultimately allow one to circumvent the use of limits in the development of calculus). These categories in which M embeds enjoy more and more of the properties we think a theory of manifolds should have at each stage of definition. In fact, at a certain stage we fix a Grothendeick topos, G, a category of sheaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory: a Gentle Introduction
    Category Theory A Gentle Introduction Peter Smith University of Cambridge Version of January 29, 2018 c Peter Smith, 2018 This PDF is an early incomplete version of work still very much in progress. For the latest and most complete version of this Gentle Introduction and for related materials see the Category Theory page at the Logic Matters website. Corrections, please, to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk. Contents Preface ix 1 The categorial imperative 1 1.1 Why category theory?1 1.2 From a bird's eye view2 1.3 Ascending to the categorial heights3 2 One structured family of structures 4 2.1 Groups4 2.2 Group homomorphisms and isomorphisms5 2.3 New groups from old8 2.4 `Identity up to isomorphism' 11 2.5 Groups and sets 13 2.6 An unresolved tension 16 3 Categories defined 17 3.1 The very idea of a category 17 3.2 Monoids and pre-ordered collections 20 3.3 Some rather sparse categories 21 3.4 More categories 23 3.5 The category of sets 24 3.6 Yet more examples 26 3.7 Diagrams 27 4 Categories beget categories 30 4.1 Duality 30 4.2 Subcategories, product and quotient categories 31 4.3 Arrow categories and slice categories 33 5 Kinds of arrows 37 5.1 Monomorphisms, epimorphisms 37 5.2 Inverses 39 5.3 Isomorphisms 42 5.4 Isomorphic objects 44 iii Contents 6 Initial and terminal objects 46 6.1 Initial and terminal objects, definitions and examples 47 6.2 Uniqueness up to unique isomorphism 48 6.3 Elements and generalized elements 49 7 Products introduced 51 7.1 Real pairs, virtual pairs 51 7.2 Pairing schemes 52 7.3 Binary products, categorially 56
    [Show full text]